Thanks to JJRoss and a post I’m planning for next week, I have been chasing down some more thoughts regarding whether or not homeschoolers are ready to be accepted. It seems that the concern is coming down to one of identity and power.
Tammy originally asked:
Is mainstreaming and bringing homeschooling into the public consciousness as a non-radical idea, something we can handle? Are we ready for the consequences? California Petition Calls for Credentialed Teachers and Parents
Maybe I do not fully understand what it is she is asking with that. JJRoss’ response reflects more on identity issues.
Is home education turning into a form of sacred secularism . . .? What shared identity do homeschoolers in this schoolish culture really want and need, for survival? Do we need more changing to fit in or changing to stand out, both, neither?
And can we stand each other while we’re doing it? Cocking a Snook
Her essay is very good, but what does it mean to be a homeschooler? I have never thought of it as an identity issue like being Jewish, or black or even Christian. It isn’t who I am. It is an expression of those things I hold most dear.
Unity also shares some thoughts.
Collectivism is not the answer for home education. Cooperation between individuals is how people get things done in an individualistic society, which our Republic by definition is, I hope. Home education is a microcosm of the larger society. The coming together of individuals with the same goal and purpose, tempered with tolerance of their differences. Can we stop the madness within the homeschool community? Why have we allowed the powers that be to continue to polarize and divide us? Individualism/Collectivism
And as much as I agree with the rest of her entry, I falter on the last two questions.
Can we stop the madness within the homeschool community?
No.
Why have we allowed the powers that be to continue to polarize and divide us?
We haven’t. The “powers that be” are merely a focal point for the fundamental divide that exists between Christian and secular homeschoolers. And I realize there are many other groups out there…feel free to add where you think you fit into all of this…but this seems to be where the sharpest divide is. At least that is where I read the most caustic use of language used in an attempt to devalue the opposition.
The real question is, how many of us truly want homeschooling protected even for those with whom we disagree? How many of us merely tolerate the fact that “those others” can homeschool because we know that to regulate them would mean submitting to regulation ourselves? Not to mention the not-insignificant number of homeschoolers who are more than willing to submit to state oversight to ensure that “those others” are educating up to their standards.
Is it really homeschooling we are advocating for, or acceptance of our own world view?
Put another way, we do not homeschool to be homeschoolers. Homeschooling is not our purpose, but the means by which we have chosen to attain a higher purpose. And we cannot agree on what that higher purpose is. In some cases, what one side calls good the other side calls evil. What one side supports, the other condemns.
But then, there is evidence that when the threat is truly to homeschooling, we can and do set aside our differences. Just look at the joint press release put out by all of California’s major statewide homeschooling organizations and HSLDA. When it is about homeschooling, we can and do put our differences aside.
But “it” isn’t always about homeschooling. And there we divide.
____
Reminder: My site will be down for a few hours sometime this weekend. I will be taking a break to catch up on some other things and enjoy the holiday, but will be here for my comments. And I will resume normal posting on Tuesday.
I am encouraged by, of all things, the recent Democratic primary race. Old ways and old people are losing or have lost. The next generation is coming in and they seem to have a clue. A clue about not repeating the same mistakes that we always make, letting ourselves be divided by fear, profit, religion, hurts held onto long past their expiration date, etc..
No doubt the next generation of hsers will find their own ways to make mistakes. No doubt some hsing leaders around now will linger long past their usefulness. But I am hopeful that with more open communication online, with increasing dissatisfaction with ps bringing in a broader range of hsers, with media coverage of hsing usually more positive than negative, the next batch of hsers will have a chance to learn to live with our diversity.
At least a bit more gracefully than we have.
Nance
Part of what JJ wrote at NHEN in a piece called “Affiliated Independence.”
“If every generation wants something better for its children, then I think the affiliated independence of NHEN — and of home education itself — would qualify. I think it represents real progress beyond the stifling organizational pressures that squeezed the joy out of so many group endeavors, including school, in the world of my youth.”
http://www.nhen.org/member/join.asp?id=387
It is about NHEN and what that organization aspires to but I always think of it in broader terms.
Nance
I have to say this, though it won’t earn me many friends. As an Episcopalian, I am neither secular, nor am I a fundamentalist. I watch the two groups, for lack of a better word, go at each other all of the time. And you know what? Many of them a whole lot alike. Both believe what they believe and there doesn’t seem to be much room for discussion.
I wonder if they will be able to put aside their hostility towards each other and work towards the common goal of greater educational freedom for ALL American children. My fear is that it will it just be for those whose parents subscribe to their viewpoint, be it secular or fundamentalist.
Very thought provoking post.
I guess I see homeschooling as a parental rights issue. I value the freedom we currently have to make educational choices that best suit our children. If everyone would/could acknowledge that parents have the right to make choices for their children that may be different then the choices we would make, I think a lot of the acrimony would be cleared up. Many people seem to be heavily invested in making sure that everyone does things their way.
Homeschooling v public schools
Fundamentalist homeschoolers v secular homeschoolers
and on and on…………….
I’m glad that most of us can rally together when freedom is at stake, but we will never all agree unless everyone figures out that I’m right.
Homeschoolers have passionate beliefs that compel us to go against the accepted norms of society. You are right. The divide isn’t something thrust upon us. Our individual ideas separate us, but can we respect each other? I’m not so sure. Focusing on the divide doesn’t seem to help.
LOTP’s comment reminded me of something that I’ve been wondering though. What is the definition of fundamentalist? Or evangelical? Not that I want to be put into any camp, but I’m sure I swing more this direction. I will look it up, but I’m wondering where the negative connotations come from.
Hmmmm… I believe what I believe, and will answer anyone who asks me “Why?”, but I don’t feel compelled to ‘convert’ anyone. For instance, when it comes to Christianity, my Bible tells me that while I am compelled to present the message of salvation, I am not in the converting business. And sure I think the Bible is true and that everyone would benefit from experiencing what I have experienced as a born-again Christian, but it is still a personal decision that one must make based on their own faith and belief, and I don’t take it personally if someone doesn’t feel the same way I do about salvation or God or striving for holiness…
So I feel the same way about home education. If another parent desires to home educate or just wants information, I’ll help all I can with my own insights and knowledge, but I don’t have a stake in their choices. It just ain’t none o’ my business.
So I agree with Alasandra, that home education is primarily a family rights issue, and the whole fundie/secular/pagan/ethnic whatever that defines the flavor of one’s home life and therefore home education process is another issue entirely, and one that need not become the focus of any ‘general’ discussion with regards to HSing.
The real question is, how many of us truly want homeschooling protected even for those with whom we disagree? How many of us merely tolerate the fact that “those others” can homeschool because we know that to regulate them would mean submitting to regulation ourselves? Not to mention the not-insignificant number of homeschoolers who are more than willing to submit to state oversight to ensure that “those others” are educating up to their standards.
This is, IMO, a pivotal question. Are secular HSers willing to grant that Christian HSers have the right to teach their children from a Christian standpoint? Are Christian HSers going to allow that pagan HSers have the right to teach their kids from a pagan pov?
I think it is a good thing when someone is passionate about what they believe, and excited to share the things they enjoy and do and learn. When it crosses over into “You are doing it wrong unless you are doing it this way” then you get into trouble.
Danda,
Just a heads up–comments may be lost during the transfer. I am going to try to move it slowly in a way that allows the site to remain up–but that means that if someone comments here while I am moving there, after I have already downloaded the database, you will lose those comments. Also you will want to back up a copy of your side bar in a txt file before I start so you don’t have to go crazy rearranging it.
Err, Dana–typing not going so well this morning.
I can totally see how difficult it is to unite homeschoolers – we all homeschool for vastly different reasons. That being said, the homeschooling community has been totally supportive of all our various reasons – and that’s a good thing. I’m not sure the answer to the problem is, but I’m sure there is one – if we could just think outside the box a bit!!
We are a family traveling on bikes, homeschooling our kids while on the road. We are anything but “traditional” but it works for us! I would hate that freedom to be taken away…
You can read about journey from Alaska to Argentina at http://www.familyonbikes.org
Renae, it is an interesting discussion. Look at Sharper Iron…they had an interesting series awhile back about fundamentalism and evangelicalism.
Sunniemom, I agree with you 100%. But not everyone does. I had a conversation recently in which someone mentioned that the reason they do not like parental rights connected to homeschooling is because they do not see homeschooling as about parental rights. It is about children’s rights…and they think parents should be regulated and kept from “indoctrinating” their children.
It was interesting to hear it put that way.
I can see it, but it still comes back to the fundamental question of who is more capable (as a general rule) of protecting the rights of the child? The parent or the state?
Sunniemom: Are secular HSers willing to grant that Christian HSers have the right to teach their children from a Christian standpoint? Are Christian HSers going to allow that pagan HSers have the right to teach their kids from a pagan pov?
***
This being America, no matter how misinformed or miseducated the result of a particular religous type of hsing or private schooling is, I have no say. None of us have to grant you anything. You live in a free country.
When religious practices cross the line into child abuse and hide behind hsing laws to do so — thinking here of the TX LDS children who are systematically raped and kept from general society, including being hsed — that is another area completely. It’s not the hsing that is under attack in that case, for instance, but the child rape.
When public schools are pressured to include a specific religious instruction that is, and should be, stopped too. But, as a hser, nobody is suggesting you don’t have the right to teach your children the moon is made of green cheese, if that’s what you want.
***
Renae: What is the definition of fundamentalist? Or evangelical? Not that I want to be put into any camp, but I’m sure I swing more this direction. I will look it up, but I’m wondering where the negative connotations come from.
Evangelicals have, as I understand it, part of their command from their god to push their version of belief onto others. For our own good, of course. That’s a big darned negative for me and many others — some who think their own particular mystical belief is pretty good.
If you are fundamentally a fundamentalist but can keep from trying to “save” me, there is no conflict. I’m an atheist and am not going to try to convert you. I’d be shocked if any atheist took it as her mission to change your mind about religion. So we’d agree to leave each other to our beliefs. But if one of us holds, as a part of her beliefs, that it is her duty to convert the other, we’ll butt heads.
Nance
When religious practices cross the line into child abuse and hide behind hsing laws to do so…
Nance, I agree with you…and it goes for religious and secular homeschoolers alike. Rape is an easy one. But I have also recently heard religious instruction of any kind compared to sexual abuse of the mind. Those are the kinds of statements that really bother me and I wonder how far those ideas will go.
Those are extreme examples and I’m not saying it is a typical opinion among homeschoolers of any stripe. I’ve actually read it more among advocates of public school and/or greater oversight of all homeschools.
And it certainly isn’t restricted to secular homeschoolers. I know Christian homeschooling who think the whole concept of unschooling is inherently abusive.
When the disagreement is between you and me, or secular and fundamentalist Christian, or whatever private disagreements that exist, it is nothing more than a public conversation. The problem for all of us comes when it moves into defining what is or isn’t homeschooling and how that is treated by law.
LOTP, I am considered “fundamentalist” by most people outside of Christianity although I don’t think the fundamentalists would have me. I consider myself evangelical, but I often look on at the debate and shake my head. I don’t think they get it. Somewhere along the way, I think we’ve lost something.
Maybe it is just too easy to split off from the church and go our own way. Rather than trying to work out differences and temper movements, we just split off and (it seems) shout for power and a voice in the public sphere. At least that is my casual observation.
Love the family bike education example — I may use this in an argument with kneejerk ps defenders sometime, thanks . . .
I’ve met homeschoolers hailing from all sorts of different political and religious “camp” who are like sunniemom and others here, happy in their own lives and happy to help when asked, but not trying to convert anyone to anything. So I know they’re out there.
But I have to tell you that I’ve met the other kind and they are impossible, insufferable, whichever camp they hail from. When I run into them and realize they cannot be reasoned with, that their purpose is to stubbornly set the rules in stone and then define us all by those rules, then I fear not just for home education but for all education and for all our freedoms and passions.
Maybe that’s what we can focus on most productively then? — how to deal with such folks no matter whose camp they seem to be in?
Hey, I’ve met a lot of insufferable people who aren’t homeschoolers. I think it goes along with having passionate beliefs. It is ok, but sometimes people get a little too absorbed in a single issue and have a hard time stepping back and seeing a broader picture. Even when they are right, they can shoot themselves in the foot by focusing too narrowly on a single issue and not trying to bridge gaps and garner support.
While I am a secular homeschooler, I’ve never “gone at” the other side, except when “they” (being larger in number) have in fact taken upon themselves to speak for ALL homeschoolers. Honestly, I don’t care who homeschools, or how they do it – just don’t speak for me. Raising kids, and educating them, is the choice of the parents alone. The only fight I’ll enter is to ensure that EVERY family retains that right – and I don’t need a huge organization like HSLDA, who does not have my best interests in mind nor speak for me, to help. I will fight for children’s rights if they are being harmed, but even a hardened humanist like myself doesn’t find Christianity “harmful” by itself. Hit your kids, and I’ll probably change my mind. I do not see the FLDS thing as a homeschooling issue. There are many gray areas in that conflict. Most of us have young brides in our own geneology.
Are we ready to fight for a common cause? Maybe – that everyone should be able to homeschool. Are we ready to fight it from the same side? No. I say that because there are too many on the “other side” who feel that not only shouldn’t I be homeschooling, I shouldn’t even be raising children. Focus on your own dang family, I’ll worry about mine.
LOL – right, I did NOT mean to limit my description of the insufferable to only homeschoolers! And no doubt our real freedom-defense problem isn’t among ourselves but in the larger community, where there are many times the number of insufferables trying to impose their will as if it were objectively “right”:
About being too passionate as the cause of insufferables, hmmm, I’m not sure there’s ever a way to be fairly viewed as “right” anytime one issue becomes your whole focus. Any more than myopia can be defined as good vision.
Help Dana, sorry! Can you pretty-please delete these first two broken-HTML versions and leave just the corrected comment?
“…they do not see homeschooling as about parental rights. It is about children’s rights…and they think parents should be regulated and kept from “indoctrinating” their children.”
Yeah, so they can indoctrinate the children another way, their way.
One man, er, woman’s poison…
Dana, I get where you’re coming from. As I (grammatically incorectly) stated “Many of them..”
I try not to ever paint a group with one brush. I really hate it when someone does it to me.
Also, because I am a Christian, many seculars turn their noses up at me. On the other hand, because I am Episcopalian, many fundamentalists wouldn’t have me to dinner on a bet.
My point, and I think I had one, was that as an *outsider* to both groups I have a perspective that one who is an insider might not have. There have been many occasions neither group looked particulary appealing, due to the constant bickering. In fact, they kinda remind me of a group of three year olds, from time to time.
(Please excuse any idiotic ramblings. She knows not what she types. Oy, the antihistimines.)
Doc, I know.
I actually quoted your blog in a similar discussion on a forum (with a link to you, of course.)
And sure, JJRoss.
And sure, JJRoss.
And sure, JJRoss.
And you mean I have to leave behind my Grand Plan of Global Domination? Or just that I have to leave homeschooling out of it? ‘Cause I’d hate to give up all my dreams all at once.
Here’s Doc’s post to which I was referring, about Lessenberry. (some profanity).
http://docsdomain.net/blog/?p=756
That is the sort of libertarian “live and let live” approach that generally benefits all of us better.
Dana: Nance, I agree with you…and it goes for religious and secular homeschoolers alike. Rape is an easy one. But I have also recently heard religious instruction of any kind compared to sexual abuse of the mind. Those are the kinds of statements that really bother me and I wonder how far those ideas will go.
***
Well, religious indoctrination bothers me but it isn’t illegal and isn’t going to be anytime soon. Most of the people in the country are some kind of religious, after all.
But drawing lines involving where something like spanking ends and abuse begins is what we do through legislation all the time. Hsers and what rules and laws govern us are not unique in being part of those discussions.
We do, though, have the added benefit of operating in ways in addition to those spelled out by laws, creating our own take on various legal arrangements.
Nance
This being America, no matter how misinformed or miseducated the result of a particular religous type of hsing or private schooling is, I have no say. None of us have to grant you anything. You live in a free country…
But, as a hser, nobody is suggesting you don’t have the right to teach your children the moon is made of green cheese, if that’s what you want.
Nance- My comment was a response to Dana’s question- are we willing to protect the rights of those with which we disagree? I wasn’t asking for anyone to grant me or anyone else anything.
This is America, but more and more folks seem to think that popular opinion should be equal with the rule of law. Either we support the principles of the Constitution- which means that folks can pretty much do whatever they want in their private lives that does not harm another person or deprive them of their property, or we are going to devolve into a country controlled by prevailing winds of opinion. How often to we hear about this poll and that study- as if these things should actually affect the way we live?
As has been evidenced by recent discussions, there are some folks that seem to believe in legislating ‘normal’- no religious or ethnic group should be allowed to practice their beliefs in their home where it would affect children, so that children can grow up uninfluenced by any particular set of beliefs, and therefore make up their own mind. As long as it conforms to the national norm, I suppose.
When reduced to its essence, such folks seem to advocate raising children in a vacuum. Doesn’t sound terribly nurturing to me, and it isn’t possible anyway.
This topic reminds me of the health food controversy going on- with food companies and restaurants being required to jump through various legal hoops as if they control what people eat, and are responsible for obesity and heart attacks. And it seems more and more that folks are being penalized for their health and lifestyle choices. There are proposed ’sin’ taxes for legal substances such as cigarettes- is that supposed to be some kind of punishment, or what? Why cigarettes and not Fruit Roll-Ups or Cocoa Puffs?
And don’t even get me started on folks who are so into health food that mere mention of McDonald’s sends them into lecture mode, complete with dire warnings of several terminal diseases that will immediately follow the consumption of a QP with cheese. I am sure they’d be quite happy if all junk food was outlawed so everyone in America could be as healthy and joyless as they are. :p
Having been around this same block so many times, I should have found a better route to go on to the next by now, but I haven’t managed it. Here’s the thing.
Ideas and constructs like “libertarian” and “Christian” and “choice” and “marriage” and “abuse” and “count every vote” as well as (formerly) less political concepts from “health” and “marriage” and “life” to “honor your father and mother” all mean different things to different people — and different things to the SAME people, depending on the issue.
Live and let live? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? All men are created equal, a man’s home is his castle, no man is an island? Do unto others? Early to bed and early to rise? Spare the rod, spoil the child, too many cooks spoil the broth, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?
Right, Sunniemom, and I was answering as one of the “secular.”
“How often to we hear about this poll and that study- as if these things should actually affect the way we live?”
And how often do we actually change our habits based on those polls?
If we legislated based on majority rule, I’d be forced to go to church. That’s not how we do things.
We go through rough patches — witness the past 7 years — but we have a system that includes rather than excludes.
Not that we don’t have to pay attention and aren’t entitled to feel how we want to about various issues (in contrast to your feelings about food labeling, for instance, I am unhappy to hear that restaurant chains have been deliberately understating fat and calorie content in menu items — not that we ever eat out
) but one thing that isn’t under serious threat in this country is anyone’s right to indoctrinate their child in their religion (short of abuse. . . and even then).
Nance — imagining the fear the children being returned to their abusive LDS homes in TX may be feeling — if they have even been told. . .
JJ- you are crackin’ me up. But I agree- those things mean different things to different people for different reasons.
If we legislated based on majority rule, I’d be forced to go to church. That’s not how we do things.
Sometimes it is- the recent vote in California is an example of a majority ruling- but then the law stepped in. So some folks are mad because ‘the will of the people’ was overrode, while others are relieved that a popular vote was not allowed to affect the private lives of citizens.
And sometimes a minority will attempt to make enough noise to cancel out the rule of law- I have a video on my blog of the Code Pink folks (who supposedly represent freedom and open-mindedness) protesting the presence of a military recruitment center in Berkeley.
Sometimes how people ‘feel’ or what they ‘believe’ is not the important issue. There are quite a few in the blogosphere who would happily see to it that home educators be forced to jump through credentialing and oversight hoops in order to be allowed to do something that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to do. Those few, who if they blather on long enough and loud enough, could impact popular opinion regardless of the facts at hand or the rule of law. It isn’t something to fear, necessarily, but definitely something to be aware of.
From what I understand about the situation in TX, the children were removed unlawfully, without verifiable evidence, and have suffered greatly in the state’s care. But all the info I have is from the media, and I am rather skeptical of anything the media reports anymore.
BTW, using the word ‘indoctrination’ every time one refers to religion is a bit of a button-pusher; raising one’s child in a home where one practices a certain lifestyle is not by default indoctrination, as this could apply to ANY lifestyle- vegetarian, ethnic, vocational…. I would not assume that a generational family of law enforcement officers were ‘indoctrinating’ their kids into becoming cops, KWIM? But if a family who was passionate about their vocation encouraged their kids to become cops/doctors/vegans/preachers- would that be a bad thing? Just a thought.
LOL, you’re crackin’ me up too Sunniemom!
“And sometimes a minority will attempt to make enough noise to cancel out the rule of law . . .”
Perfect example. We can all nod at this but some of us would have in mind anti-military protests such as the one you describe or maybe that militant antiwar church disrupting military family funerals — I HATED those! — while others of us picture legally equivalent anti-abortion protests, at the premiere of Horton Hears a Who say, or blocking the path of a woman trying to seek private health care from a clinic. Live and let live? “WHO” does Horton (or me or you or some generic homeshcooler) hear interfering with WHO-m? Depends on WHO’s telling the story to whom, and why, I guess . . .:)
imagining the fear the children being returned to their abusive LDS homes
This is a tough one. This isn’t directly to that situation but broader, from my experience of working with abused children. They rarely see their rescue the same way we do. That’s not saying that we don’t ever take children from their parents, but I think we have to have a healthy respect for the abuse incurred by the act of taking a child from their family.
I worked with a six year old once who had been prostituted for drug money. She was covered in scars, but no one really seemed to know where any of them came from. She tried to force sexual contact with adults and would abuse younger children. And she desperately wanted to go home and cheered when it came time for her first visit.
That’s why this concept of immediate danger is so important and why the judge in the FLDS case ruled that the kids be returned. CPS is supposed to respect removal as an absolute last option to protect a child from immediate danger because removal itself is an act of abuse. And it is traumatic to every child who experiences it, regardless of the abuse they are being rescued from.
Every child I have ever worked with who was removed, regardless of the situation they left behind, went through the grieving process and none of them were thankful they were taken. None of them even expressed fear at going to visits, while some threw major fits when it was time to return to the foster home.
I fully believe removal was the best option in each of those cases, but from that, I also have a great deal of concern for anyone who wants to set the current tests for abuse lower.
Sure JJ- protest is legal, and I am all for the freedom to protest or boycott things that one finds objectionable- but the rule of law should remain paramount, not pubic opinion. That is all the point I am trying to make, and of course, I make it from my own POV.
Here’s an interesting tidbit- Teach Your Children Well: The First Rule of Any Civilized Society
…make it easy for children to opt out of home schooling- the older the child, the easier it becomes. Any twelve-year-old who wants to go to public school should be allowed to do so, regardless of the parent’s wishes.
Can we make it as easy for them to opt out of public school?
Oh, and I like his story about the kid who thought the US consisted of a dozen states of which he could name four. What country is it that has difficulty locating the US on a map? They confuse it with Brazil for some reason. Oh yeah! It’ US high school students!
I was thinking that if a 12 yo is mature enough to make such a decision against parental wishes/input, then why not lower the age of consent, allow them to drink and smoke, get full-time jobs and leave home completely if they wish?
Except I don’t know what “rule of law” itself can possibly mean in a democratic republic, other discerning public opinion and working to reflect/respect it –
JJ- Although IMO the Constitution delineates the powers of gov’t and the inherent rights of citizens rather clearly, and has been amended to reflect the changes in society/technology, it is still subject to ‘interpretation’. Too much interpretation, ifn’ yer askin’ me.
I know, Sunniemom.
I was really only asking why public school is the default? Why is it fine to force children to do things against their will…where some even become physically ill as a result…but suddenly we should respect their wishes above their parents in the event of homeschooling?
It is because it is perfectly acceptable for the “public” to force its will, just not the parent.
The author wasn’t really looking to respect the wishes of children or defend their rights…it is only a superficial argument, to make it seem like that is what he is worried about. But really, he is worried about other people’s children being taught things he disagrees with.
At least that was my take.
Except I don’t know what “rule of law” itself can possibly mean in a democratic republic, other discerning public opinion and working to reflect/respect it –
I disagree. Judges shouldn’t be discerning public opinion. They should be ruling on the law set before them. If the law is out of date, then it is the legislature’s job, a body that is supposed to be responsive to the will of the people, although with enough checks to slow things down a bit.
But this is then reflected in the laws passed.
If we all, from the police officer to the judge to the legislature, are just trying to determine public opinion, than it is more like anarchy. And no one’s rights are particularly protected because it is pure majority rule…a different sort of tyranny, but tyranny nonetheless.
And it is traumatic to every child who experiences it, regardless of the abuse they are being rescued from.
***
I would expect it to be. No matter how well handled.
And I still wouldn’t want to be a 13-year-old girl getting the “good news.”
Nance
BTW, using the word ‘indoctrination’ every time one refers to religion is a bit of a button-pusher;
***
Well, that’s part of what we are talking about. Your “family values” may be my “indoctrination.”
Nance
If we all, from the police officer to the judge to the legislature, are just trying to determine public opinion, than it is more like anarchy.
**
In real life, though, people like policemen use their discretion all the time. And we expect them to do so.
Nance
Discretion? Yes. Respond to public opinion? No. They are very different things and why we move high profile cases out of the area. And why we look for jurors who haven’t heard about the case. We make an attempt at serving justice rather than an outraged public.
Dana, I am still waiting for the servers to update–the site is moved literally but you will probably lose the last few comments here when it does switch over the rest of the way. It is completely out of my hands at this point–it just takes time.
Discretion? Yes. Respond to public opinion? No. They are very different things . . .
**
You wrote: “CPS is supposed to respect removal as an absolute last option to protect a child from immediate danger because removal itself is an act of abuse.”
This is a fine example of the way one reading of the law can collide with another interpretation — in real life or in a courtroom.
I see an immediate and continuing threat to the children in the LDS compound and applaud their removal — knowing full well that will be traumatic, at least in the short term.
Others, including a TX court, disagree.
And now the TX Supreme Court will have its say.
The opinion of some part of the public will be reflected, no matter which way the court rules.
Nance
Dana and sunniemom, what I mean is that either the people are sovereign or they are NOT. The Constitution didn’t just spring up from the earth spo0ntaneously. It came from the people. It was a work of practical compromise and quite flawed even at the time, much less now after all this time. Not holy writ.
Take Sandra Day O’Connor, for example:
And on a related note, here’s something about civics education coming in 2009, that might interest some here:
“Our Courts”
I omitted this hotlink for that quote above.
And I wanted to add this:
Darn! Okay, then, try this. (It’s from a January 2006 Washington Post review of Joan Biskupic’s book about Justice O’Connor.)
The opinion of some part of the public will be reflected, no matter which way the court rules.
The fact that some will agree and some will disagree is not the same as the opinion of the court reflecting a certain group’s opinion. Not unless the court is actively polling, like politicians do. But we have a system in effect which tries to limit the immediate effect of popular opinion to try to maintain justice, even when the public is highly interested in a case. It isn’t mob rule.
If we went purely by public opinion, abortion likely never would have become legal, nor gay marriage/civil union in any state.
And the people may be sovereign, but only over their own lives and their own property. If we do not protect the rights of minority groups, we do not really have “liberty and justice for all,” we have liberty and justice for the majority.
The Constitution can adapt over time, but it isn’t meant to change with the tides, either. I’m with Jefferson on that one.
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. – Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803
That isn’t to say it cannot adapt over time. We can amend it. And Jefferson was actually for holding a Constitutional Convention once every generation. Which I’m not sure we need, but simply adapting how we read it does not protect the rights that the Constitution was designed to protect.
“I consider the foundation of the [Federal] Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [10th Amendment] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.
If we kept to that, we would not have the issues with education that we do right now. And government would likely be more responsive to the people, because it would be more local and closer to the people.
Oh, your honor, I must object!
***********
And the people may be sovereign, but only over their own lives and their own property. If we do not protect the rights of minority groups, we do not really have “liberty and justice for all,” we have liberty and justice for the majority.
***********
Individual people are sovereign over individual lives and property. AND “we the people” as a self-governing population are the ones who decide everything including whether or not there would be equal rights for minority groups, and liberty and justice for all, and what that will mean from generation to generation.
I know it seems we’ve strayed from framing homeschool politics for the public but if you think about it, it’s the same thing as not agreeing on what the word “homeschooling” or “education” or Christian” means. When Dana says “rule by public opinion” she seems to mean an undesirable capitulation to pure mob rule, constant polling with no constitutional compass. When I say it, I mean all of our civic and governmental life — including media and education — does in fact represent what we the people have wrought. Like it or not.
this is so important for each of us to think about as individuals, and then for us to discuss and resolve as “homeschooling.”